Did you disable fcntl-style locking when building Mutt?
-Clint
On Mar 14, Eric Boehm wrote:
I have found that mutt 1.1.9 is about 4x slower reading a 7.4 MB mail
file with 1451 messages in it than mutt 1.0.
I tried this several times to eliminate the effects of caching. It took
mutt 1.0
On 2000-03-14 21:23:36 -0500, Eric Boehm wrote:
I have found that mutt 1.1.9 is about 4x slower
reading a 7.4 MB mail file with 1451 messages in it
than mutt 1.0.
You are transferring almost 8 MBit/s with the new mutt
versions. This looks like the bottleneck is really NFS
and your Ethernet,
I have found that mutt 1.1.9 is about 4x slower reading a 7.4 MB mail
file with 1451 messages in it than mutt 1.0.
I tried this several times to eliminate the effects of caching. It took mutt
1.0 about 7.8 seconds to bring up the file, it took mutt 1.1.9 about 28.8
seconds to bring up the
"Thomas" == Thomas Roessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"Lars" == Lars Hecking [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas You are transferring almost 8 MBit/s with the new mutt versions.
Thomas This looks like the bottleneck is really NFS and your Ethernet,
Thomas not mutt. With the old mutt,
Eric Boehm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, across NFS. I copied the file to a local drive and ran both
mutts. The time was about the same (1.8 sec). Both mutts were also
run from a local drive.
Mutt wants to use fcntl-locking on the file. This forces NFS to use a
non-caching mode, where
Lars rant Convenient as they are, charsets are another feature that
Lars make it easier for ppl to shoot themselves (and others) in the
Lars foot. Now that my mutt is charset sensitive, I often find messages
Lars with big5, iso-2022-jp, or koi8-r, although none of the
On Mon, Mar 13, 2000 at 02:03:37PM -0500, Thomas Roessler wrote:
"Thomas" == Thomas Roessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thomas Changes against 1.1.8 are a couple of bug-fixes. Unless someone
Thomas has some real show-stoppers, I'd consider this to be a release
Thomas candidate for
Eric Boehm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have found that mutt 1.1.9 is about 4x slower reading a 7.4 MB mail
file with 1451 messages in it than mutt 1.0.
NFS? What type(s) of file locking? Differences in "mutt -v" output?
I don't know if you would consider this a show stopper but it was
On Tuesday, 14 March 2000 at 21:23, Eric Boehm wrote:
On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 06:59:48PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote:
"David" == David DeSimone [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Eric I have found that mutt 1.1.9 is about 4x slower reading a 7.4 MB
Eric mail file with 1451 messages in it
